Why it's in the conservative interest to be as degenerate as possible

[momeNt]

I would posit that the number of morals which are absolute are so small, that it would probably constitute the objective/natural moral code. All others are perceived morals that would fall apart when faced with a true challenge to them (kill, lie, steal).

I'd refer you back to his first post on it.

I disagree. Excluding psychopaths, people have moral codes and each person's moral code is absolute. The desire for an objective, standard moral code is an expression of one's confusion and frustration as to how another's moral code could be different from one's own.

If we say, "two wrongs make a right" we are acknowledging that the wrong on our part is a moral failing that we are choosing to carry out in the face of our moral code. The need to rationalize the choice reveals that our moral code is still functioning even if we choose to not live up to it.

It is a personal code, that is basically perceived, I don't think he is arguing against that, more that your own personal code is absolute.

 

[momeNt]

Err you stated that you left the garbage as-is. That's not being a bystander, that's contributing (leaving it where it is as opposed to performing an action that could change things). A bystander to the result is the one on seeing a story about garbage on the shelf on the news (unable to do anything about it).

Please note i'm not ranking either one on the badness scale because it's a waste of time and effort. Neither is *helping* the situation though.

Interesting that you think that way. You are basically saying a failing positive duty to do something (being in the presence of garbage and having to pick it up) is just as bad as committing the act. I think most courts would disagree with that assessment though. It IS bystander logic, if you witness a murder, beating, bullying, and you don't do something about it, you are alleging that the bystander contributed to the harm. I don't think I can agree with that.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Today's 21st century conservative's are pretending that our "truthfulness" is what's really important to them. Which, ironically, is not true. What matters to them is discrediting anything that they believe harms their side.

They don't seem to be looking to make education more rigorous and informative, or science more empirical or verifiable, or voting more representative, or the government more efficient or effective. They just want all those things to reinforce their partisan, ideological, viewpoint.

 

[Vic]

I live in a mostly liberal neighborhood and I'm the kind of person that when its rainy or very cold at the grocery store parking lot. I always will return my cart to the stall, yet on those days I see people brazenly leave carts outside so the workers have to do extra work to collect all the carts. And I'm the constitutional conservative / borderline anarchist?

People sometimes vote a certain way to actually relieve their consciousness of what horrible people they ACTUALLY are. I don't believe politics is a true indicator of personality. I'm sure in some instances it can be, but a lot of times it is not how people actually behave in their own ecosystem.

Do you have any evidence to support your assumption that people in mostly conservative neighborhoods are more likely to return their shopping carts to the stalls?
Besides being anecdotal, your argument is a bit flawed without a control group.
Plus, one could say the same about all those people on the right who loudly call themselves Christians but rarely act in a Christ-like manner.
IMO what's more important to pay attention to is that Trump has popularized being of poor character. Trumpism says that winning at all costs is good. That is the philosophy that Trumpism is based upon. That 2 wrongs do make a right. That schadenfreude is good. That one should be proud to be deplorable. I don't see how anything good can come of all that, but perhaps you can tell me?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Interesting that you think that way. You are basically saying a failing positive duty to do something (being in the presence of garbage and having to pick it up) is just as bad as committing the act. I think most courts would disagree with that assessment though. It IS bystander logic, if you witness a murder, beating, bullying, and you don't do something about it, you are alleging that the bystander contributed to the harm. I don't think I can agree with that.

Argh, you keep using that phrase 'as bad as'. I said specifically that I won't talk about which is worse because it's a pointless conversation that doesn't help anything. I said neither is *better*, meaning neither improves the situation. Ironically you bring up the court system, where there actually IS precedent for people being held liable for being an 'unhelpful direct bystander'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue

It isn't fully fleshed out, and no, you would not be charged with the same level of crime, but many would not consider it to be completely innocent. This would probable be wrapped up into a 'decent folk' argument/labeling.

 

[momeNt]

Do you have any evidence to support your assumption that people in mostly conservative neighborhoods are more likely to return their shopping carts to the stalls?
Besides being anecdotal, your argument is a bit flawed without a control group.
Plus, one could say the same about all those people on the right who loudly call themselves Christians but rarely act in a Christ-like manner.
IMO what's more important to pay attention to is that Trump has popularized being of poor character. Trumpism says that winning at all costs is good. That is the philosophy that Trumpism is based upon. That 2 wrongs do make a right. That schadenfreude is good. That one should be proud to be deplorable. I don't see how anything good can come of all that, but perhaps you can tell me?

Yes, it happens the same when I lived in rural conservative areas. People are assholes.

Honestly trying to refer back to OP. What degenerate behavior is he even talking about, that is attributed to conservatives? I feel like we allowed a pretense to be discussed completely unchallenged. We've been duped.

 

[Jaskalas]

Honestly trying to refer back to OP. What degenerate behavior is he even talking about, that is attributed to conservatives? I feel like we allowed a pretense to be discussed completely unchallenged. We've been duped.

Not all of us have left the OP unchallenged.

Politics being the team sport that it is, independents would simply be folks who are sick of both sides. Who see failings in both, and who have not been moved towards making a choice. If Trump and company really become as degenerate as possible, independents will have to make that choice against them.

Your argument makes no sense. There are lines in American society and they CAN be crossed. It's not in the Republican's interests to cross those lines and have a large segment of the population previously apathetic suddenly decide to disown them in revolt. Take repealing ACA for example. That is going to move voters, and it simply cannot go in Republican's favor.

 

[Moonbeam]

I disagree. Excluding psychopaths, people have moral codes and each person's moral code is absolute. The desire for an objective, standard moral code is an expression of one's confusion and frustration as to how another's moral code could be different from one's own.

If we say, "two wrongs make a right" we are acknowledging that the wrong on our part is a moral failing that we are choosing to carry out in the face of our moral code. The need to rationalize the choice reveals that our moral code is still functioning even if we choose to not live up to it.

Where is the rationalization in 2wrong=1right. If the equation is accurate the commission of two wrongs is right and morally proper by definition.

I disagree. Excluding psychopaths, people have moral codes and each person's moral code is absolute. The desire for an objective, standard moral code is an expression of one's confusion and frustration as to how another's moral code could be different from one's own.

If we say, "two wrongs make a right" we are acknowledging that the wrong on our part is a moral failing that we are choosing to carry out in the face of our moral code. The need to rationalize the choice reveals that our moral code is still functioning even if we choose to not live up to it.

I disagree. Excluding psychopaths, people have moral codes and each person's moral code is absolute. The desire for an objective, standard moral code is an expression of one's confusion and frustration as to how another's moral code could be different from one's own.

If we say, "two wrongs make a right" we are acknowledging that the wrong on our part is a moral failing that we are choosing to carry out in the face of our moral code. The need to rationalize the choice reveals that our moral code is still functioning even if we choose to not live up to it.

If we say "two wrongs" we speak for ourselves not for the person who sees those two wrongs as two acts that are justified by being right. If you want to call such people psychopaths it's fine by me, but I would say they are people motivated not to see what is moral.

 

[agent00f]

Leaving a cart approximately 50-100 feet away from a stall, propped up on a curb, or sometimes just between stalls, which can cause property damage, to me personally makes you a lazy and inconsiderate person. Unless you are old or otherwise have health problems, if you are able, i think it is the decent thing to do.

This thread is basically about mental diarrhea so I figured I would dump something that irks me. Another grocery store thing that I absolute hate, people leaving refrigerated items in non-refrigerated areas because they decided they no longer want it. Or if somebody walked in with a starbucks or some other drink, and they leave it empty in the shelves. Complete disregard for store inventory, general cleanliness, and very lazy, as there are garbage cans all over the place now that disinfectant wipes and food snack trials come with a garbage can.

Conservatives are so dependable at diverting relevant topics when it's inconvenient, and people with enlightenment values often don't see right through this.

Politics being the team sport that it is, independents would simply be folks who are sick of both sides. Who see failings in both, and who have not been moved towards making a choice. If Trump and company really become as degenerate as possible, independents will have to make that choice against them.

In the same vein, "independents" are often people aggrandizing themselves, which agitprop professionals like Fox News play that blathering attitude like a fiddle per BothSides. "You are so smart to be above the fray, remember to stay fair and balanced!". You can tell when the "independents" dependably protect their own when it comes down to it.

Your argument makes no sense. There are lines in American society and they CAN be crossed. It's not in the Republican's interests to cross those lines and have a large segment of the population previously apathetic suddenly decide to disown them in revolt. Take repealing ACA for example. That is going to move voters, and it simply cannot go in Republican's favor.

It makes absolute perfect sense that traditionalists will stay true to their character by sticking to the past no matter what. Whatever the GOP doesn't do with healthcare will predictably fail, and their dipshits will reliably blame it all on everyone else. But I'm sure you'll have real trouble understanding the simple concepts here given it's hardly in your "independent" interest to do so.

 

[momeNt]

Conservatives are so dependable at diverting relevant topics when it's inconvenient, and people with enlightenment values often don't see right through this.



In the same vein, "independents" are often people aggrandizing themselves, which agitprop professionals like Fox News play that blathering attitude like a fiddle per BothSides. "You are so smart to be above the fray, remember to stay fair and balanced!". You can tell when the "independents" dependably protect their own when it comes down to it.



It makes absolute perfect sense that traditionalists will stay true to their character by sticking to the past no matter what. Whatever the GOP doesn't do with healthcare will predictably fail, and their dipshits will reliably blame it all on everyone else. But I'm sure you'll have real trouble understanding the simple concepts here given it's hardly in your "independent" interest to do so.

What does it mean to you to be liberal? What does it mean to you to be conservative? I rarely understand anything you say, so can we maybe start with something simple?

 

[agent00f]

Yes, it happens the same when I lived in rural conservative areas. People are assholes.

Honestly trying to refer back to OP. What degenerate behavior is he even talking about, that is attributed to conservatives? I feel like we allowed a pretense to be discussed completely unchallenged. We've been duped.

The opening post speaks for itself. As a perfect example of said behavior: posting garbage about returning shopping carts, which you acknowledge is garbage, but I'm sure some fair and balanced "independent" will see as just more BothSides.

What does it mean to you to be liberal? What does it mean to you to be conservative? I rarely understand anything you say, so can we maybe start with something simple?

Traditionalist/loyalists vs students of the enlightenment/modernity. Their respective stances on science/edu/facts are surely simple enough to grasp.

 

[momeNt]

The opening post speaks for itself. As a perfect example of said behavior: posting garbage about returning shopping carts, which you acknowledge is garbage, but I'm sure some fair and balanced "independent" will see as just more BothSides.



Traditionalist/loyalists vs students of the enlightenment/modernity. Their respective stances on science/edu/facts are surely simple enough to grasp.

Can you give me an example of a stance you hold that highlights your enlightenment and modernity?

 

[Jaskalas]

In the same vein, "independents" are often people aggrandizing themselves, which agitprop professionals like Fox News play that blathering attitude like a fiddle per BothSides. "You are so smart to be above the fray, remember to stay fair and balanced!". You can tell when the "independents" dependably protect their own when it comes down to it.

Both sides have independents who lean towards them, but are not blind to the reasons they abandoned party dogma. You place them in quotes as you believe they are not independents, but are instead your opponents? Lashing out as you find people to blame for the 2016 election? Moonbeam is correct then, to warn you of offering beatings to those who are already injured. Your quest for vengeance does not lead to any satisfaction. If you would just learn from history and see where that path leads.

It makes absolute perfect sense that traditionalists will stay true to their character by sticking to the past no matter what. Whatever the GOP doesn't do with healthcare will predictably fail, and their dipshits will reliably blame it all on everyone else. But I'm sure you'll have real trouble understanding the simple concepts here given it's hardly in your "independent" interest to do so.

My interest is Single Payer, and I do not feel hatred for those who voted Trump. I pity them and their growing struggles to survive. I understand that they made a vote of desperation as our dysfunctional government devoured their hope from 2008. Filibuster killed the will of the voters and now only the tune of a con man comforts them. They are not headed into a better future, and it takes the inspirations and hopes of people like Sanders to rally them out of their despair.

Those are my interests and feelings on this topic, but you would label me "independent", which your topic slanders as Republican.
Stereotyping people does not serve you well.

 

[agent00f]

Can you give me an example of a stance you hold that highlights your enlightenment and modernity?

Not scapegoating lower status minorities for the country's problems.

 

[momeNt]

Not scapegoating lower status minorities for the country's problems.

Are you able to provide anything that isn't a critique of how you view conservatism and actually have an opinion of what liberalism IS, not what it is NOT?

 

[agent00f]

Are you able to provide anything that isn't a critique of how you view conservatism and actually have an opinion of what liberalism IS, not what it is NOT?

Enlightenment values teach egalitarian measures of a person's merit/character, not what country they're from. It was after all a movement to reject conservatism.

 

[raildogg]

Conservatism and liberalism are two religions.

In organized religions, the followers are always led astray by their rulers.

 

[agent00f]

Both sides have independents who lean towards them, but are not blind to the reasons they abandoned party dogma. You place them in quotes as you believe they are not independents, but are instead your opponents? Lashing out as you find people to blame for the 2016 election? Moonbeam is correct then, to warn you of offering beatings to those who are already injured. Your quest for vengeance does not lead to any satisfaction. If you would just learn from history and see where that path leads.

I follow the simple rule of treating people how they treat others. They do after all profess to be responsible adults. But let's assume for the sake of your argument they're not, as liberals often do, namely they're easily fooled naive idiots who we must sympathize and reason with. Well, we've certainly seen the results of that approach.

My interest is Single Payer, and I do not feel hatred for those who voted Trump. I pity them and their growing struggles to survive. I understand that they made a vote of desperation as our dysfunctional government devoured their hope from 2008. Filibuster killed the will of the voters and now only the tune of a con man comforts them. They are not headed into a better future, and it takes the inspirations and hopes of people like Sanders to rally them out of their despair.

Those are my interests and feelings on this topic, but you would label me "independent", which your topic slanders as Republican.
Stereotyping people does not serve you well.

So we should've gotten someone who would've fooled them with something better than Trump's inspirations and hopes. Mind your concern trolling about "should've been Sanders", particular with people wont to see him as a socialist, even if it didn't stem from your mind but rather handlers who see it in their interest to push that narrative.

Conservatism and liberalism are two religions.

In organized religions, the followers are always led astray by their rulers.

I wouldn't say the enlightenment was a religion.

 

[raildogg]

Enlightenment? I think we're talking about things beyond our grasp here.

There are all kinds of religions out there - flat earth religion, Democrat party religion, Republican party religion, liberal religion, conservative religion, unversity system religion, etc.

Yeah, they aren't officially called organized religions but people who worship these organizations and beliefs are followers.

Religion:

"a particular system of faith and worship."

"a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

 

[agent00f]

Enlightenment? I think we're talking about things beyond our grasp here.

There are all kinds of religions out there - flat earth religion, Democrat party religion, Republican party religion, liberal religion, conservative religion, unversity system religion, etc.

Yeah, they aren't officially called organized religions but people who worship these organizations and beliefs are followers.

Religion:

"a particular system of faith and worship."

"a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance."

Yeah that religion of empirical reasoning. Keep it fair and balanced.

 

[Jaskalas]

So we should've gotten someone who would've fooled them with something better than Trump's inspirations and hopes. Mind your concern trolling about "should've been Sanders", particular with people wont to see him as a socialist, even if it didn't stem from your mind but rather handlers who see it in their interest to push that narrative.

Wait... if you're railing against both progressives and independents... not sure I can follow where you're coming from. I'm seeing raw anger for "those" who cost "you" the election. Rest assured the EC means my Green vote didn't count. Would you call that concern voting brought on by some conspiracy of GOP handlers? I'd say the election unhinged you.

Which explains this topic. I certainly oppose your reasoning that "it's in the conservative interest to be as degenerate as possible". That sounds defeatist, that sounds pessimistic and hateful of the voters. I believe there are lines Republicans are scared to cross because they know voters will crucify them next election. Healthcare is certainly one of those issues that they are destined to lose. You want another issue they lost? The Iraq war gave Democrats huge support in 2006 and 2008.

Such swings against them when they fumble is established precedent.
Surely you are aware of this, how does it add up to what you are saying?

 

[agent00f]

Wait... if you're railing against both progressives and independents... not sure I can follow where you're coming from. I'm seeing raw anger for "those" who cost "you" the election. Rest assured the EC means my Green vote didn't count. Would you call that concern voting brought on by some conspiracy of GOP handlers? I'd say the election unhinged you.

Pretty sure the american political situation in context of systemic interests and game theory hasn't change much for a while. For example it's not in the interest of people spouting conservative talking points to grasp much of this any more now than before some election. Talking points such as Clinton screwed Sanders out of the presidency, or the election has made libtards unhinged, and any number the inherently dishonest will vehemently deny they're part of in the manner of their leader: right after spouting them, sometimes in the same breath. As noted it's simply in the nature of conservatism as a matter of causal phenomena: understanding reality makes them weak, which is a perfectly good reason not to.

Which explains this topic. I certainly oppose your reasoning that "it's in the conservative interest to be as degenerate as possible". That sounds defeatist, that sounds pessimistic and hateful of the voters. I believe there are lines Republicans are scared to cross because they know voters will crucify them next election. Healthcare is certainly one of those issues that they are destined to lose. You want another issue they lost? The Iraq war gave Democrats huge support in 2006 and 2008.

Such swings against them when they fumble is established precedent.
Surely you are aware of this, how does it add up to what you are saying?

The fairly straightforward reasoning is presented in the OP and elaborated on in subsequent post. A worthwhile counterargument would find fault in various steps or such, and it's pretty obvious whatever it is you're trying to argue has nothing to do with said reasoning.